Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[AV1611VET]

How ya been,AV?

Just spiffy, freezerman!

Thank you for asking!

You?

 

[freezerman2000]

Got the word tonight that Wallyworld is taking me on a a regular associate..no more temp status for me!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Got the word tonight that Wallyworld is taking me on a a regular associate..no more temp status for me!!!

Good for you!

When you make manager, hire me as a greeter, will ya!?

 

[freezerman2000]

I don't want management..to many ulcers involved..
I'd hire ya on in a heartbeat if I could...

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

They see something God created several thousand years ago and call it billions of years old. Wonder how they calibrated that.

Using multiple independent methods of course. How would you suggest calibrating something?

 

[bhsmte]

Using multiple independent methods of course. How would you suggest calibrating something?

The default calibration should be 6000 years, of course.

 

[BrianJK]

That depends. Which dating techniques are you referring to, specifically?

My apologies for not having specifics. Anything developed within the past hundred or so years that claims it can accurately date something millions and billions of years old seems at least as far fetched to me as others claim the Bible seems to them.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

My apologies for not having specifics. Anything developed within the past hundred or so years that claims it can accurately date something millions and billions of years old seems at least as far fetched to me as others claim the Bible seems to them.

Far fetched based on what exactly?

 

[lasthero]

My apologies for not having specifics. Anything developed within the past hundred or so years that claims it can accurately date something millions and billions of years old seems at least as far fetched to me

But, by your own admission, you don't have specifics. So why, exactly, does that seem farfetched to you? Is there any exact reason why you think it can't be done?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My apologies for not having specifics. Anything developed within the past hundred or so years that claims it can accurately date something millions and billions of years old seems at least as far fetched to me as others claim the Bible seems to them.

Radiometric dating is roughly 100 years old. But it was well known that the Noah's Ark story was just a load of dingoes' kidneys long before that.


Early geologists were able to show that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old at the very least long before Darwin came along. Many of them started by looking for evidence to confirm Noah's flood and found the opposite.

 

[biggles53]

My apologies for not having specifics. Anything developed within the past hundred or so years that claims it can accurately date something millions and billions of years old seems at least as far fetched to me as others claim the Bible seems to them.

Argument from Incredulity logical fallacy....

Which means Brian, that just because YOU can't imagine it being able to be done is NOT an argument against it being done...!

 

[bhsmte]

But, by your own admission, you don't have specifics. So why, exactly, does that seem farfetched to you? Is there any exact reason why you think it can't be done?

I would think it is more like; he doesn't want it to be true and is why he has no objective reason as to why the dating is actually wrong.

 

[BrianJK]

Radiometric dating is roughly 100 years old. But it was well known that the Noah's Ark story was just a load of dingoes' kidneys long before that.


Early geologists were able to show that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old at the very least long before Darwin came along. Many of them started by looking for evidence to confirm Noah's flood and found the opposite.

Well, I must have not been at the meeting where everyone decided Noah's Ark was fake. Sorry, missed that one, so I'll stick with the belief that it happened.

They found evidence and they decided randomly to switch from believing God to believing what they thought was evidence?

 

[OllieFranz]

My apologies for not having specifics. Anything developed within the past hundred or so years that claims it can accurately date something millions and billions of years old seems at least as far fetched to me as others claim the Bible seems to them.

Why is that? Do you have a different system of mathematics? If every formula in all branches of science extrapolates to the same dates, how can you claim that they are all in error? Science works from observation to mathematical models, to a degree of assurance in the workings of Nature. Working from a conclusion to rejecting Nature is not science, and not any way to understand Creation. God gave us intelligence and He expects us to use it.

 

[BrianJK]

I would think it is more like; he doesn't want it to be true and is why he has no objective reason as to why the dating is actually wrong.

Still everyone simply claims "this is right and the Bible is not". How is this any different than me having faith in the Bible?

 

[BrianJK]

Why is that? Do you have a different system of mathematics? If every formula in all branches of science extrapolates to the same dates, how can you claim that they are all in error? Science works from observation to mathematical models, to a degree of assurance in the workings of Nature. Working from a conclusion to rejecting Nature is not science, and not any way to understand Creation. God gave us intelligence and He expects us to use it.

God gave us the Bible and expects us to believe it, rather than explain it away when scientists tell us they found something billions of years old when the Bible says God created everything in six days.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Well, I must have not been at the meeting where everyone decided Noah's Ark was fake. Sorry, missed that one, so I'll stick with the belief that it happened.

No matter what's true right?

They found evidence and they decided randomly to switch from believing God to believing what they thought was evidence?

It's called integrity. Accepting what is true rather than what you want to be true.

 

[bhsmte]

Still everyone simply claims "this is right and the Bible is not". How is this any different than me having faith in the Bible?

Because it is based on verifiable evidence (the dating) it is very different.

But, I understand this is not something you can accept, because it goes against your holy book. So, believe what you choose to believe.

 

[lasthero]

Still everyone simply claims "this is right and the Bible is not". How is this any different than me having faith in the Bible?

I'm not claiming anything. Do you have any specific reason why you believe that it's impossible to determine dates using dating methods? If you believe we can't do it, that's fine, but is your belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis the only reason, or do you feel there's some flaw in the way dating is done?

 

[lasthero]

God gave us the Bible and expects us to believe it, rather than explain it away when scientists tell us they found something billions of years old when the Bible says God created everything in six days.

Let's say that you're one of these scientists, and you study the Earth under the assumption that it's 6,000 years old. You fully expect it to confirm your beliefs...but the results don't do it. You check it again and again and again. You check with others. You go over your findings. You labor for years, trying to get this puzzle piece to fit - but it won't. It just won't.

You want it to fit your notion, but it doesn't. What do you do in this scenario?